While [Lord Treisman] said that the government had no interest in “hounding 14-year-olds who shared music”, it was intent on tracking down those who made multiple copies for profit.
What is interesting is this admittance that the goal is to “track[…] down those who made multiple copies for profit” (emphasis added), not “hound”. This is a perfectly reasonable compromise. But if this compromise is genuinely pursued, then reform must head in the opposite direction of “anti file-sharing laws”. For example, a UK law stating the default copyright be (or along the lines of) CC by-nc-nd would be in sync with the “intent” of the government. This way they can still track down those who copy “for profit” yet avoid passing corrupt laws that criminalize the sharing of culture.
Unfortunately, the article clearly demonstrates that Lord Triesman is confused by the distorted “intellectual property theft” view. Therefore, a passing of antisocial law would not come as a surprise.